“But he didn’t want to move or even complain because it had been hard enough to find a place he could afford ($400 a month with a shared bathroom) as it was.”

I have been a tenant since 1984. Lucky for me I have had responsible landlords and I am not finicky about details.

The Province wide, nay National wide, housing affordability/supply disaster, is far wider than local and will continue to exacerbate because . . .

“Today, financial maneuvering and debt leverage play the role that military conquest did in times past. Its aim is still to control land, basic infrastructure and the economic surplus – and also to gain control of national savings, commercial banking and central bank policy. This financial conquest is achieved peacefully and even voluntarily rather than militarily. But the aim is the same: to make subject populations pay – as debtors and as dependent junior trade partners. Indebted “host economies” are in a similar position to that of defeated countries. Their economic surplus is transferred abroad financially, while locally, debtors lose sovereignty over their own financial, economic and tax policy. Public infrastructure is sold off to foreign buyers, on credit and therefore paying interest and fees that are expensed as tax-deductible and paid to foreigners.”

Go to http://www.counterpunch.org/ to continue reading Michael’s very pertinent views.

IMHO we must follow many European countries and take our accommodation initiatives into our own hands: i.e. Building Societies etc. A public waiting for the developer to provide is too benign for its own good.

We are just at the beginning of scary times.

I’m not sure we should be seeing the word “STIR ” and the phrase “affordable housing” in the same sentence – they have nothing to do with each other.

At the King Ed Station/Cambie Planning neighbourhood walkabout we did last May (June?) single family home owners railed against density along King Ed–‘how dare you think about townhouses/condos in my neighbourhood, I bought here 10 years ago because I love this neighbourhood the way it is’ blah blah blah.

Everyone suggested just tearing down the 3-4 storeys along Cambie between 20th-24th and redevelop those as higher towers. One woman spoke up, a renter from one of those buildings. She said she’d been renting there for 24 years and the most recent move in was over 5 years ago so she would like to see them remain–she has been living in the community for 24 years to grow it to what it is today.

The prevailing response? Too bad, your opinion doesn’t matter. No one cares what renters think.

@Roger

Conspiracy theories appeal to people because humans need to feel in control so it is preferable to believe that someone is manipulating the economic system than accept it is a complex system that no one is controlling. It is why anthropogenic global warming was so readily accepted since it is preferable to think that we are causing climate change, and can control it, than contemplate that climate change may be due to natural processes that are beyond our control.

The free market system on its own does not guarantee desireable results and there is a role for government to provide an appropriate framework and to mitigate the undesireable effects such as through social programs. This role should be more like a referee than a player. Take a look at citycaucus.ca for an update on the Olympic Village fiasco for a good example of what can go wrong when the city gets into activities it shouldn’t.

Oh. Well, here’s a blogger that says there needs to be more done to create affordable rental housing. But it’s got absolutely nothing to do with STIR, or building it, and also calls Don to the carpet,

http://www.wetcoastwomen.com/?p=1634

Westender1 – STIR, or any program to encourage more housing of all variety, is about affordable housing.

The reason why rents go up, is because demand exceeds supply. If supply of rentals increases, rents will stabilize or even go down.

A new, luxury rental building would pull renters with higher incomes out of their existing west end rental in older buildings. This would make room for those with more modest incomes.

Actually, even more ownership options helps free up rentals. 1100 s.f. townhouses in a place like King-Ed near Cambie might be at a price point that a few renters could afford (whereas they can’t afford a single family house in Van and don’t want to move to the ‘burbs), this would get them out of the rental market as well, again freeing a space for someone else.

My latest blog post discusses this issue in a broader context (click on my name)

Hi Wendy,

If it’s possible to provide, I would love to read how/where supply and demand caused rents to come down.

A huge amount of housing stock came to Coal Harbour and Yaletown, and rents had not come down. Even in the West End where, contrary to what Gregory Henriquez (and some reporters) had proclaimed, there indeed has been development in the last two decades which added at least 5,577 housing units, an undetermined number of which are rental.

I also think it’s conjecture that a luxury building with meagre sized units would pull renters with higher incomes out of their existing west end rental in older buildings making room for more modest incomes.

Last year low interest rates created a wave of first time buyers, plus (un)employment displacement caused a spike in vacancy. Did landlords stabilize or reduce rents to stop the exodus?

Speaking with property managers, landlords use the opportunity when long time tenants leave to raise the rents since they are no longer bound by the maximum annual rental increase.

Also populations aren’t zero sum static entities. Communities aren’t bound by invisible walls that keep people out. By building additional housing stock doesn’t mean you are creating additional vacancy in a community.

And it’s simply false to claim STIR has anything to do with affordable housing. From the city’s STIR FAQ:

Q: What is the STIR program?

A: The STIR program – Short Term incentives for Rental – started in June 2009. STIR is a time limited program running until December 2011 to encourage the construction of market rental housing and to create construction jobs in response to the economic recession in 2009.

I don’t think faith-based supply side trickle down economics via a municipal ‘stimulus package’ subsidy to developers is a wise approach for critical core housing needs that face us now.

We need higher levels of government at the table for core housing needs that face us now and we need the city to get back to the practice of stable land use, for the sake of certainty amongst communities and the development industry, instead of site by site arbitrary rezoning.

Hi Wendy,

High end luxury furnished rentals are not the concern here, and are obviously going to be price sensitive to transient demand, especially an anomaly like the Olympics. They even fluctuate wildly throughout the year based on the season and how many weeks/months they are being rented out for.

Also CMHC does not track privately owned condo rentals, I’m not sure if anyone keeps tabs on that. Do you? At best that observation is anecdotal.

Can you be specific about stopping rent escalation? How do you factor in the cost of land and inflation?

You also say in 11 that, “A new, luxury rental building would pull renters with higher incomes out of their existing west end rental in older buildings.”

But in 14, you say, “If supply keeps up (as it has for the higher end market because of investor-owned rental condos) then rent doesn’t go up when a new tenant comes in.”

Well which is it? If we have supply now with the Olympic crowd gone, why is another luxury building needed?

I don’t mean to be harsh but when STIR is being used to fundamentally violate existing planning policy at the cost to renters and tax payers (not to mention the patience of developers) I believe we deserve better.

Thanks Frances. I have wondered about how vacancy is measured. I had heard that they phone call landlords of apartment buildings and just ask what’s going on. Do they call up private owners as well?

Perhaps Michael Geller, or anyone else familiar may shed some light here? 🙂

Replying a bit late:

The CMHC report in question is here:

http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/esub/64467/64467_2009_A01.pdf?sid=944a30d7fb4f4eaea0901b7b39f7c2e8&fr=1285607195441

They only release it once per year, in about November, so this one is nearly a year old.

It does include condo vacancy, although as Think suggested, the methodology isn’t ideal. In fact, it will under-report vacancies because asking a building superintendent in a larger condo tower isn’t necessarily the best source. He/she will not likely know of the status of every unit in the building (whether its a rental, and whether its rented).

About 6 months ago I heard a presentation from property management companies who manage rental condos and they said their vacancy was reaching 5% (not sure of geographic area, but fairly certain it included Burnaby as well as Vancouver). CMHC meanwhile was reporting condo vacancy at 1.7%.